WISWBLIi V. JABVIS. 87 �about to proceed to sea, from Boston, this transfer was made in pur- suance of this agreement. Such an agreement imposed no }egal liability on the husband, did not constitute him in law the debtor of bis wife, and does not afford any legal support to this conveyance. �This view is fully sustained by the opinion of Lowell, 3., in In re Blandin, 1 Low. 543, and of Hunt, J., in Humes v. Scruggs, 94 U. S. 22. The case, therefore, is that of a voluntary conveyance of a val- uable estate by a husband to his wife, and the question is whether it «an stand against an assignes in bankruptcy, representing credit- ors to the amoiint of $3,000, whose debts were contracted prior to such conveyance. The law upon this subject is now well settled in Maine, by the decision in French v. Holmes, 67 Me. 186, where it was decided "that a voluntary gift by husband to his wife, if he be indebted, is prima facie fraudulent as to creditors." "This may be rebutted by the circumstances of the case and by proofs, and whether the gift is fraudulent or not is a question of fact,to be determiiied by the jury." �InKehr y. Smith, 20 Wall. 35, the rule as stated by Davis, J., ia "that a voluntary post-nuptial settlement will be upheld if it be reasonable, not disproportionate to the husband's means, taking into view his debts and situation, and clear of any intent, actual or con- structive, to defraud creditors." �In Kent v. Rileyi L. E. 14 Eq. Cas. 190, the marginal note to the decision of the master of the rolls is : "In the absence of actual intent to defeat, delay, or hinder creditors a voluntary settlement made by ia eettler in embarrassed circumstances, but having property not inciuded in the settlement, ample for payment of the debts owing by him at the time of makingit, may be supported against creditors, although debts due at the time Of the settlement may to a considerable amount remain unpaid." �What, then, was the bankrupt's condition at the time of this con- veyance, on the eighteenth of March, 1871, his petition in bankruptcy not being filed till more tban seven years afterwards, viz., August 17, 1878. In his answer he states the entire amount of his liabilities at that date as not exceeding §3,000, and there is no evidence in cou- tradiction of this amount. The bankrupt alsosaysin his answer "he was worth and possessed of more than $12,000 over and above all liabilities, not including the property in question; that he intended to and would have paid all he owed if it had not been for his lossos sustained from 1872 to 1877." Mrs. Jarvis states in her answer the propertj' owned by her hnsband in March, 1871, and what finally ��� �
